A crpg is a bad DM. You cannot do anything outside of its prescribed rules.

A good DM can make magic from alignment matters.

This is only because of limited programming, and lack of foresight. (Or foresight with lack of willingness )

One affecting issue is fully voiced PCs & NPCs. When the game limits, and/or abstracts their spoken dialog, leaving the bulk of the game as text, they are free to not only alter or add to the text —without a new recording session, but even dynamically change it at will, and with details based on the emergent state of the game.

There are a lot of differences. The most significant. A computer can only do what is programmed, a DM can do anything.

Not all DMs can, it does take talent and an inspired vision; and the same can be said of a system's designer.

Your sticking point is that "it's the player's character, they do as they wish with it", but there are RPGs where the characters were not made by the players, and have an implied (or even documented) pre-existing personalties and even a past when the game starts. What you are ignoring is the things like NPCs who've known the character for a long time (or long enough to trust them), and they interact with them during the game... but it can become obvious that these NPC would never have associated with a character as the player is choosing to play them (contrary to alignment). They would long since have distanced themselves from them. This is equally so for the criminal ring leader that suddenly sees a kindness streak in his best operator. This person would begin to distrust them; perhaps even cut them loose—with a fatal accident.

You say that intention is meaningless... Planescape comes to mind (again) because there are duplicate dialog lines in the game, where one is intended as a lie. Clearly the designers are asking for the player's intentions. Unrelated to PS, there is of course the 'little white lie' thought by some to be told of good intentions; thought by others to still be lying, and unacceptable under any circumstances. Intentions are only meaningless if the game designer didn't anticipate them, or didn't bother caring about them, and offers the player nothing for them. In Fallout, many players completed the game, and discovered (to their shock & chagrin) that some of the consequences of their intended actions were not at all what they intended... and I've read of people that promptly played the game through again to undo the memory of it on their conscience, by making different choices.

Alignment is not needed. It is a pointless attribute. If the game reacts to your actions and deeds, then it is superfluous and simply promotes "lazy" gameplay.

I disagree of course, but here I do so very especially and specific, because here you said that the character's own ethics, beliefs, and personality are meaningless; when I say they are an integral part of the role itself... and actually comprise most of it. It's the simple difference between Gollum & Sam, & Boromir (to use a Tolkien reference). Sam won't steal, Gollum will steal anything he desires, and Boromir will steal for the greater good.

In Palladium's terms that makes Boromir (rather unintuitively) of Unprincipled alignment, while Sam is definitely Principled, and Gollum is of the Miscreant alignment; though might lean towards Diabolic when possessed of the ring. When you ask yourself, "How would Gollum react to a certain turn of events?" Is it the same as Sam would have? (And if the answer is 'yes', is it for the same intentions?)

This is only because of limited programming, and lack of foresight. (Or foresight with lack of willingness )

Until we have AI that can pass a Turing test, we won't be there.

I don't think it has to be that all encompassing. The developers have full control over the environment as well as the NPCs. They can both plan for what they can anticipate, and possibly allow for certain logical cause & effect. In Overlord, the player can set the fields on fire to burn opponents (and their avatar too if they are not careful). A developer could support similar tactics in towns, whether deliberate or accidental. Setting the tavern on fire could logically close it for many days, see the patron's and owner bear a grudge against the PC, ban them from the place, have an official serve them with a fine for damages; arrest them if they resist or can't pay. It could inspire job offers from seedy residents, it could reveal a secret passage in the remains of the building (perhaps the only way to have found it). If the owner perished in the blaze, a family member or business partner could appear in town, and be the one to reopen the place. All it takes is some extended brain-storming; and some of these events could be automated—re-skinned as it were for use in different towns, or different NPCs. Salted with permuted details.

I would love to play an RPG that could see a town hire the PC to clear a bandit cave, and then weeks later have explorers from town set off boobytraps the player placed in the cave and forgot about... Next month they pass through town and there is a funeral procession (because it could be automated to happen in cases of notable town figures passing away somehow). The player's PC could be hired by the town sheriff to find out who was responsible for the traps; or to go make sure that there aren't any more of them.
(Or be discovered as the culprit, and be almost lynched.)

How about if the engine were setup to randomize the heightmaps of the landscape for each new PC made, or just for each unique install of the game... and when the player destroys the upstream dam, the game engine uses a loose fluid sim to decide where the water goes, and what towns get flooded (ie. run the flood NPC behavior). Suddenly the town's economy changes over night); and the sheriff has new rescue missions for able adventurers, and a heightened security (with curfew) to protect property from looters.

As for original PC actions... well you can't beat 'Bucket on the Head' burglary, but you could have the shopkeeper freak out when they suddenly can't see more than two inches. Or have them actually investigate loiterers in their shop. In the rogue-like title ADOM, the shopkeepers take up position in the doorway once the PC pockets anything. and they must be talked to in order to leave the shop.

I honestly liked the Tell-Me-Abouts in Fallout; and wished there had been a lot more of them for each NPC. For those that don't know, or don't recall them... The player could ask the NPCs about nearly anything they had mentioned previously, and a couple of things they might not have mentioned at all. If they had something to say about it they would; and in some cases the only way you'd ever hear it is to have asked them to tell you about it.
In Fallout, though it's nowhere in the dialogs, you can ask Set about his opinion of war... and he tells you; but only if you type out the question.

For conversations, I think that a truth toggle (for everything) is impractical overkill, but it would nice if —should the designer realize an interesting effect of lying about something... that they find a way to include the dialog option for those PCs that it could occur to; and support the alternate outcome(s). I liked the fact that Fallout 2 gave situational perks; character tweaks that only came from unusual experiences. This made for interesting variance, and could even work in a classed game where not all classed characters would be near clones of one another.

Unique skills can really help with this, but I made the mistake of suggesting that a few months ago.

Your sticking point is that "it's the player's character, they do as they wish with it", but there are RPGs where the characters were not made by the players, and have an implied (or even documented) pre-existing personalties and even a past when the game starts.

But not Bard's Tale.

What you are ignoring is the things like NPCs who've known the character for a long time (or long enough to trust them), and they interact with them during the game... but it can become obvious that these NPC would never have associated with a character as the player is choosing to play them (contrary to alignment). They would long since have distanced themselves from them. This is equally so for the criminal ring leader that suddenly sees a kindness streak in his best operator. This person would begin to distrust them; perhaps even cut them loose—with a fatal accident.

Yep. That's heavy on PC/NPC scripting. Not Bard's Tale. You're playing the role of the pre-designed character, not of your own character. That's not the type of RPG we are making here.

You say that intention is meaningless... Planescape comes to mind (again) because there are duplicate dialog lines in the game, where one is intended as a lie. Clearly the designers are asking for the player's intentions.

You're using an in-plot example. Having dialogue options labeled as good/bad options is not something that needs to be tied to your alignment. In that case, dialogue options are descriptive of alignment, not prescribed by your alignment. If you deny certain dialogue options to be available to the character, then Alignment is prescriptive. But merely highlighting what a 'good' or 'bad' character would choose is not what we are rallying against. There, your dialogue choices are all available, and what you choose plays towards defining your alignment by the result of your selection (and there'd be a distinctive outcome whether you choose the red or green dialogue option), rather than the other way around.
Highlight choices as good/bad for that situation if you want, but don't give my character an alignment then tell me I can't choose that other dialogue option.

Alignment is not needed. It is a pointless attribute. If the game reacts to your actions and deeds, then it is superfluous and simply promotes "lazy" gameplay.

I disagree of course, but here I do so very especially and specific, because here you said that the character's own ethics, beliefs, and personality are meaningless;

No.
Again.
PRESCRIBING the character's ethics, beliefs and personality in restricting what choices they can make in the game, merely by the label and not by actions is the problem.
The characters' ethics, beliefs and personality are far from meaningless - they are SO meaningful that the player having agency to apply them as they choose can have a dramatically different effect on the style of RPG being played. You don't seem to prefer cause and effect over prescribed alignment. That's fine.

Some people prefer rail shooter games like Panzer Dragoon far more than free motion shooters like Doom. One is no less a game, or 'shooter', than the other.
And that's just fine.
Leave Alignment out of Bard's Tale. Please.

All of your quotes are of my replies to Woolfe; (which is fine, but it's confusing to read out of context with no names on the quotes).
We already assume that BT4 is not going to be a deep RPG, and will hopefully be closer to BT123 than to Planescape. Planescape is not a game that you can just sit down and play—like D00M. It's a game that can actually give you a headache trying to get back up to speed in it after a brief lapse. D00M... you can sit down at anytime; even play five different sessions, it doesn't have the kind of demand on the player; you don't have to care if you quit when your taxi arrives.

I'm not arguing for alignments in BT4... Unless... they try to make it full of in depth conversation and branch-affected quests that reveal the character's motivations. Because then it seems out of place for the PC's personality not to have the same level of history & detail than the rest of the game world.

As it stands, the PCs are likely just part of the UI; (which is typical for dungeoncrawlers). UI characters are ability enablers; and just that.

Woolfe wrote:Alignment is not needed. It is a pointless attribute. If the game reacts to your actions and deeds, then it is superfluous and simply promotes "lazy" gameplay.

I disagree of course, but here I do so very especially and specific, because here you said that the character's own ethics, beliefs, and personality are meaningless;

No.

This example was about the game asking for clarified intention; something Woolfe claimed was pointless. It is something I tried giving examples about;(like why an evil character might do what appears as a good deed, but that it shouldn't be considered as one). Also, recall that Planescape did offer good and evil choices that could changed the alignment; and afterwards, the engine could check that alignment in order to know the PC by their past behavior.

A crpg is a bad DM. You cannot do anything outside of its prescribed rules.

A good DM can make magic from alignment matters.

This is only because of limited programming, and lack of foresight. (Or foresight with lack of willingness )

One affecting issue is fully voiced PCs & NPCs. When the game limits, and/or abstracts their spoken dialog, leaving the bulk of the game as text, they are free to not only alter or add to the text —without a new recording session, but even dynamically change it at will, and with details based on the emergent state of the game.

Agreed, however as we don't have systems that can even vaguely come near the power required to do this, and we don't have interfaces that allow the same level of complexity as P&P. We must accept that the requirements and needs change.

Alignment is one of them. It was always meant as a guide. Some minor elements were added that made it more specific later on, but the intent was always to allow a DM to guide the players, rather than force them to do a specific act.

A lawful good paladin, can decide to do something Evil or Chaotic. It will have ramifications on that individual, but that is up to the DM.

There are a lot of differences. The most significant. A computer can only do what is programmed, a DM can do anything.

Not all DMs can, it does take talent and an inspired vision; and the same can be said of a system's designer.

Yes and no. A DM is limited by their ability of course, as is a developer. But a developer also has other restrictions, the resources available, the power of the system, and the time available to develop.

Your sticking point is that "it's the player's character, they do as they wish with it", but there are RPGs where the characters were not made by the players, and have an implied (or even documented) pre-existing personalties and even a past when the game starts. What you are ignoring is the things like NPCs who've known the character for a long time (or long enough to trust them), and they interact with them during the game... but it can become obvious that these NPC would never have associated with a character as the player is choosing to play them (contrary to alignment). They would long since have distanced themselves from them. This is equally so for the criminal ring leader that suddenly sees a kindness streak in his best operator. This person would begin to distrust them; perhaps even cut them loose—with a fatal accident.

As I was saying this is based on the resources available. An NPC that knows about you is easy for a predefined character, because it is predefined.
If you want that for a fully created character, you need to have the NPC react to elements of the character. An alignment could do that, but it is BAD dming, further it is again meaningless if you have other elements to associate with. For example a character background or traits etc.

As to your comments on "distrust" etc. So... Who cares... Or rather, why does it matter. You are now playing the character. People change. You can build into it comments such as "man you've changed" etc. But the better option is to avoid that sort of backstory, or to make it generic so that specific definitions get created in your first interactions rather than having pre-existed.
Alignment could work here, but it is meaningless. Rather define the character through questions. Old friend says "Hey remember that time at Blah" you are then given several responses that allow you to define your character then and there. "Oh when we stole that guys car after we slammed his head into the wall" or "Yeah we were lucky not to get killed by those guys, I can't believe they were picking on that old man" etc etc.

This allows you to better define the actual character, rather than having a meaningless figure that simply says "Good" "bad" whatever.

You say that intention is meaningless... Planescape comes to mind (again) because there are duplicate dialog lines in the game, where one is intended as a lie. Clearly the designers are asking for the player's intentions. Unrelated to PS, there is of course the 'little white lie' thought by some to be told of good intentions; thought by others to still be lying, and unacceptable under any circumstances. Intentions are only meaningless if the game designer didn't anticipate them, or didn't bother caring about them, and offers the player nothing for them. In Fallout, many players completed the game, and discovered (to their shock & chagrin) that some of the consequences of their intended actions were not at all what they intended... and I've read of people that promptly played the game through again to undo the memory of it on their conscience, by making different choices.

The "PLAYER'S" intentions. Not the characters. The Player now has full control of the character, it is their character. If they want that character to have a sudden change of heart and be a complete Arsehat, then that will be reflected in the choices the PLAYER makes. Not defined by an arbitrary stat.
Intentions are meaningless unless someone knows about them.
If you have a Good alignment, and you know that by killing the beloved Doctor in a town, will stop the deaths in another town.(You have no other options), you are killing him with the best intentions. You can even tell everyone in the town that. But that won't make them any nicer to you. Intentions mean diddly squat. Now the towns over, may not like you either because you killed a Doctor. But when the random deaths stop occuring and people start putting 2 and 2 together, maybe they will be a little more forgiving.

You cannot portray that with an "alignment" stat.

And Fallout is the perfect example of MY reasoning. Actions and Reactions. No shitty alignment stat getting in the way. You do something that seems right(or wrong) and the end result is totally different to what you expect. That has nothing to do with alignment. But it sure makes the game interesting.

Alignment is not needed. It is a pointless attribute. If the game reacts to your actions and deeds, then it is superfluous and simply promotes "lazy" gameplay.

I disagree of course, but here I do so very especially and specific, because here you said that the character's own ethics, beliefs, and personality are meaningless; when I say they are an integral part of the role itself... and actually comprise most of it. It's the simple difference between Gollum & Sam, & Boromir (to use a Tolkien reference). Sam won't steal, Gollum will steal anything he desires, and Boromir will steal for the greater good.

As the player of those characters, if you choose to steal and kill, then that is what they will do. This is now your take on the character. For good or for ill.

In Palladium's terms that makes Boromir (rather unintuitively) of Unprincipled alignment, while Sam is definitely Principled, and Gollum is of the Miscreant alignment; though might lean towards Diabolic when possessed of the ring. When you ask yourself, "How would Gollum react to a certain turn of events?" Is it the same as Sam would have? (And if the answer is 'yes', is it for the same intentions?)

If Gollum is being played by a Player, then he can react however the player wants. The DM will take into account the actions that have affected Gollum up until that point. For example the ring. The player may decide that he wants to be good,(not unlike the actual story) but the constant pull of the ring culminates in him trying to get it back anyway he can, eventually building to the point where he can't resist or fails to resist and attacks Frodo to get it back.
Actions and reactions. Nothing to do with Alignment, and the intent is meaningless.

One affecting issue is fully voiced PCs & NPCs. When the game limits, and/or abstracts their spoken dialog, leaving the bulk of the game as text, they are free to not only alter or add to the text —without a new recording session, but even dynamically change it at will, and with details based on the emergent state of the game.

Agreed, however as we don't have systems that can even vaguely come near the power required to do this, and we don't have interfaces that allow the same level of complexity as P&P.

It's not a technical limitation; current gen, all the way back to first gen can parse text. One could type in game on a CoCo2 that altered its text based on in-game events, or on player input.... but a disk drive would help, and allow for a bigger game.

We must accept that the requirements and needs change.

Exactly what requirements do you mean here? (The context is vague)

As I was saying this is based on the resources available. An NPC that knows about you is easy for a predefined character, because it is predefined. If you want that for a fully created character, you need to have the NPC react to elements of the character. An alignment could do that, but it is BAD dming, further it is again meaningless if you have other elements to associate with. For example a character background or traits etc.

This is a limited view of it IMO. The NPC could have access to a set of flags that indicate public knowledge, private knowledge, and personal observations, with which to influence NPC actions. Consider a pawnshop NPC who buys stolen goods and pretends not to know. He might give a cursory question or two about the items...then makes a decision about the PC, and stores that info for later (to use in other decisions). Consider if the PC stole that stuff without getting caught—or even noticed by the owner... and that of the several pawnshops in the area, that particular guy recognizes the stolen items, and knows who they belong to. None of the others do. Selling to him can potentially notify the owner, and cause future trouble for the PC, New NPCs can spring into being, there to hunt down the PC, and drag them back to the owner.

*If you didn't know... There were instances in Fallout, where—eventually, NPCs would spring into being, there to hunt down the PC; hired by upset townsfolk.

As to your comments on "distrust" etc. So... Who cares... Or rather, why does it matter.

I would not have written it if it was not meant, and intended, to impart a further understanding of the points. You say these things are meaningless, but it is that you do not perceive the meaning; it is not that there is none to perceive.

Rather define the character through questions. Old friend says "Hey remember that time at Blah" you are then given several responses that allow you to define your character then and there. "Oh when we stole that guys car after we slammed his head into the wall" or "Yeah we were lucky not to get killed by those guys, I can't believe they were picking on that old man" etc etc.

It's a burgeoning staple of interactive fiction, and could be well employed in RPGs. Earlier today I played through an interactive book that starts you off as a vampire, and alters the PC, narrative details, and situations, as you answer its questions. Some answers totally defined the NPCs encountered later.

This allows you to better define the actual character, rather than having a meaningless figure that simply says "Good" "bad" whatever.

I disagree. Have you played The Witcher 2? (Or KotOR perhaps?) In the Witcher 2 the arm wrestling minigame depicts a kind of slider widget that affects whether he wins or loses. The object is to maintain the mouse position over a moving region that builds up inertia—to the left or right (win/lose). So long as the mouse stays on top of the region, the region builds inertia (towards winning), but if it doesn't stay between the proscribed boundaries of that region...then the region loses inertia and starts building it towards the other direction (towards losing), The Witcher fails the test if the region moves to the edge on the left.
This depiction of inertia is a can be applied to an alignment struggle. One where every player choice moves the marker. Some choices stay in the region, others skirt the edge; some leave the region entirely... and the region's inertia gets an instant kick. Possibly one that can't be recovered from. Both you, and thebruce have decided each on your own that my preference here is for the (lawful) paladin to only be presented with respectable options. Nevermind constant mentioning of Planescape's dynamic alignment system. I said I didn't mind static alignments, but I also said they were not my preference either.

What I would prefer is a sliding scale of opportunities for the PC. Options that nudge (alignment) either way, and can show the champion maintaining—or tilting a bit towards the selfish as they go; but not having the immediate option to become a spree killer who ends townships for fun. The same (in reverse) goes for the psychotic villain. Where one day they might start softening up, and show slight compassion... And not steal the tips on the lunch counter as they leave; but they would certainly not hand out $1000 tips for overhearing of their waiter's impending eviction.

In KotOR there is a dynamic alignment in play; They use the Star Wars concept of the Force, but it's still alignment mechanics. The player see-saws back & forth between the Dark Side and the Light side, It even affect's their appearance. Eventually they start getting abilities that depend upon their alignment. The game has to know what that alignment is. It's not meaningless, it serves the same purpose in all RPGs that use it. As you've mentioned, the DM needs to know it in order to interpret it best they can... It's the same with the game engine, which is the virtual DM.

Now 'Black & White' does this too, and does it closer you how you seem to prefer it; no rules, just reactions; cause & effect. But there are no complex situations in B&W, mostly just fetch quests, and petty demands... Which I found to be very strange things to level at a supposedly omnipotent entity.

If you have a Good alignment, and you know that by killing the beloved Doctor in a town, will stop the deaths in another town.(You have no other options), you are killing him with the best intentions. You can even tell everyone in the town that. But that won't make them any nicer to you.

And why should it?

Intentions mean diddly squat. Now the towns over, may not like you either because you killed a Doctor. But when the random deaths stop occuring and people start putting 2 and 2 together, maybe they will be a little more forgiving.

You cannot portray that with an "alignment" stat.

That's not why one would have an alignment stat. NPCs —well... non-magical NPCs would not normally be able to read the PC's mind and make decisions from that. The magic weapons can—but they are magic. Perhaps psychics could too. Regular people (if they knew anything about the PC) would only know what they've seen or heard, and that's the PC's reputation. Like as seen in Baldur's Gate; and yes, BG had both a reputation and PC alignments. In BG you could be evil with a great public reputation... You could steal everything in sight and not get a bad reputation ~unless seen. In Fallout there was karma & reputation. Rep == public opinion, Karma == actuality. Karma is effectively an ersatz alignment stat... Fallout was initially based on GURPS, and GURPS doesn't have alignments; it has an even better system... but it's inherently more complex... Although the dungeoncrawler series 'Realms of Arkania' has similar; from the German RPG system upon which the game is based.

The alignment stat (to use a bastardized term) is meta, it's not like a glowing plaque floating over their head that says "chaotic evil". As I've said before, it's best use is internal... like for deciding the severity of the dialog & choice options I mentioned before (above with those good & evil characters baby-stepping their way to a personality shift).

As the player of those [Tolkien] characters, if you choose to steal and kill, then that is what they will do. This is now your take on the character. For good or for ill.

If Gollum is being played by a Player, then he can react however the player wants.

This is why we can't have nice things. That's not their personalities; that's playing them wrong; that's poor roleplaying at it's most egregious.

One affecting issue is fully voiced PCs & NPCs. When the game limits, and/or abstracts their spoken dialog, leaving the bulk of the game as text, they are free to not only alter or add to the text —without a new recording session, but even dynamically change it at will, and with details based on the emergent state of the game.

Agreed, however as we don't have systems that can even vaguely come near the power required to do this, and we don't have interfaces that allow the same level of complexity as P&P.

It's not a technical limitation; current gen, all the way back to first gen can parse text. One could type in game on a CoCo2 that altered its text based on in-game events, or on player input.... but a disk drive would help, and allow for a bigger game.

Don't be ridiculous. Parsing the information into the system is the easy part, its interpreting, and making decisions based on that information that is difficult.

We must accept that the requirements and needs change.

Exactly what requirements do you mean here? (The context is vague)

Of course it is vague. You cut anything contextual out.

"Agreed, however as we don't have systems that can even vaguely come near the power required to do this, and we don't have interfaces that allow the same level of complexity as P&P. We must accept that the requirements and needs change."

Short version. Computer =/= P&P DM or Player. Therefore shit will be handled differently, so suck it up.

As I was saying this is based on the resources available. An NPC that knows about you is easy for a predefined character, because it is predefined. If you want that for a fully created character, you need to have the NPC react to elements of the character. An alignment could do that, but it is BAD dming, further it is again meaningless if you have other elements to associate with. For example a character background or traits etc.

This is a limited view of it IMO. The NPC could have access to a set of flags that indicate public knowledge, private knowledge, and personal observations, with which to influence NPC actions.

See that bit I have underlined. First that is what I have been saying. The NPC would be reacting to knowledge that exists based on the ACTIONS of the player. Second if we continue with the assumption that the Character is new and therefore has not provided any actions to fill those "influences" then the initial contact would be "discovery" type.
Third. This is not an alignment.

Consider a pawnshop NPC who buys stolen goods and pretends not to know. He might give a cursory question or two about the items...then makes a decision about the PC, and stores that info for later (to use in other decisions). Consider if the PC stole that stuff without getting caught—or even noticed by the owner... and that of the several pawnshops in the area, that particular guy recognizes the stolen items, and knows who they belong to. None of the others do. Selling to him can potentially notify the owner, and cause future trouble for the PC, New NPCs can spring into being, there to hunt down the PC, and drag them back to the owner.

*If you didn't know... There were instances in Fallout, where—eventually, NPCs would spring into being, there to hunt down the PC; hired by upset townsfolk.

Again your example is pointless it has nothing to do with Alignment, and everything to do with the characters ACTIONS and the REACTIONS of the NPC's to them. Which is the point I have been making over and over and over.

As to your comments on "distrust" etc. So... Who cares... Or rather, why does it matter.

I would not have written it if it was not meant, and intended, to impart a further understanding of the points. You say these things are meaningless, but it is that you do not perceive the meaning; it is not that there is none to perceive.

No it means in relation to the character having an alignment stat it is not important. The rest of my sentence that you cut "You are now playing the character." returns again to the crux of the matter. You have taken control of the character, whatever "alignment" the characters back story had set, is no longer important. The game will read you on your actions and your actions will dictate who "distrusts" you. You even used that in your example of the pawnbroker. Distrust built, with no need for a meaningless alignment stat.

<example of player skill vs character skill removed>
This depiction of inertia is a can be applied to an alignment struggle. One where every player choice moves the marker. Some choices stay in the region, others skirt the edge; some leave the region entirely... and the region's inertia gets an instant kick. Possibly one that can't be recovered from. Both you, and thebruce have decided each on your own that my preference here is for the (lawful) paladin to only be presented with respectable options. Nevermind constant mentioning of Planescape's dynamic alignment system. I said I didn't mind static alignments, but I also said they were not my preference either.

Still meaningless. But let me clarify something. I have never played Planescape Torment the PC game, and I put it to you that we have used those particular examples, because you yourself continue to use them as examples.
Further, it doesn't matter if it is static of fluid. It is still a meaningless stat that shows nothing. NPC's can't react to it because they can't see it. The game can't set it because it doesn't know what the "Intent", as you are so want to use, can't be known to the computer unless the player tells it.

What I would prefer is a sliding scale of opportunities for the PC. Options that nudge (alignment) either way, and can show the champion maintaining—or tilting a bit towards the selfish as they go; but not having the immediate option to become a spree killer who ends townships for fun. The same (in reverse) goes for the psychotic villain. Where one day they might start softening up, and show slight compassion... And not steal the tips on the lunch counter as they leave; but they would certainly not hand out $1000 tips for overhearing of their waiter's impending eviction.

Bullshit. Any of those things could happen. You don't know why the character is doing it. That is the story that the player is making for the character.

In KotOR there is a dynamic alignment in play; They use the Star Wars concept of the Force, but it's still alignment mechanics. The player see-saws back & forth between the Dark Side and the Light side, It even affect's their appearance. Eventually they start getting abilities that depend upon their alignment. The game has to know what that alignment is. It's not meaningless, it serves the same purpose in all RPGs that use it. As you've mentioned, the DM needs to know it in order to interpret it best they can... It's the same with the game engine, which is the virtual DM.

Which is a very defined element of the games story. The Force is a real thing in that world, the light side and dark side are active participants in the game. It is not meaningless because it is aligned to a specific power, which gives you specific abilities.

Now 'Black & White' does this too, and does it closer you how you seem to prefer it; no rules, just reactions; cause & effect. But there are no complex situations in B&W, mostly just fetch quests, and petty demands... Which I found to be very strange things to level at a supposedly omnipotent entity.

Same thing. You are a god. This is how you show your villagers that you are a God.

If you have a Good alignment, and you know that by killing the beloved Doctor in a town, will stop the deaths in another town.(You have no other options), you are killing him with the best intentions. You can even tell everyone in the town that. But that won't make them any nicer to you.

And why should it?

Indeed. So you agree then, intent is meaningless.

Intentions mean diddly squat. Now the towns over, may not like you either because you killed a Doctor. But when the random deaths stop occuring and people start putting 2 and 2 together, maybe they will be a little more forgiving.

You cannot portray that with an "alignment" stat.

That's not why one would have an alignment stat. NPCs —well... non-magical NPCs would not normally be able to read the PC's mind and make decisions from that.

Indeed, so again. We agree. The intent is not important. You are the one who keeps associating intent with a discussion of alignment.

<Various game systems' versions of Kharma/Reputation or Reputation removed because they are not important>

The alignment stat (to use a bastardized term) is meta, it's not like a glowing plaque floating over their head that says "chaotic evil". As I've said before, it's best use is internal... like for deciding the severity of the dialog & choice options I mentioned before (above with those good & evil characters baby-stepping their way to a personality shift).

Simply allow the character to choose the way they respond. Then the actions that they choose, whether it be lies, intimidation, friendly or whatever will speak to the "alignment" of the character. No stat can replace that nor should it.

As the player of those [Tolkien] characters, if you choose to steal and kill, then that is what they will do. This is now your take on the character. For good or for ill.

If Gollum is being played by a Player, then he can react however the player wants.

This is why we can't have nice things. That's not their personalities; that's playing them wrong; that's poor roleplaying at it's most egregious.

Rubbish, how can you play Gollum "wrong". You can play him different. But not wrong, because you are now playing him. This is not an interactive book. This is an RPG. You are playing the character, you are choosing the characters direction. The funny thing is, I wasn't even wrong. Gollum IS a tragic character perverted and broken by the desire for the ring. When he chose to travel with Sam and Frodo, it was ostensibly to have a chance to get the ring back, but it was also the first real contact with people that he had without the ring on his person. He was forced to interact with them. The movie even portrayed him having moments of conflict with himself, where the need for the ring would win over in the end.

Gizmo wrote:All of your quotes are of my replies to Woolfe; (which is fine, but it's confusing to read out of context with no names on the quotes).

All my quote responses are directed to the individual last named in a prior quote block if not named directly. Who they sub-quoted is irrelevant, I quote what I feel I want to reply to. It is a public thread, so anyone can reply to anything at any time, so for mine just look at the last labeled at the same level. Pretty much guaranteed in this thread that's always giong to be you. =P

The NPC could have access to a set of flags that indicate public knowledge, private knowledge, and personal observations, with which to influence NPC actions. Consider a pawnshop NPC who buys stolen goods and pretends not to know. He might give a cursory question or two about the items...then makes a decision about the PC, and stores that info for later (to use in other decisions). Consider if the PC stole that stuff without getting caught—or even noticed by the owner... and that of the several pawnshops in the area, that particular guy recognizes the stolen items, and knows who they belong to. None of the others do. Selling to him can potentially notify the owner, and cause future trouble for the PC, New NPCs can spring into being, there to hunt down the PC, and drag them back to the owner.

Yep, and all because of how the player chose to interact with the NPC. All of those are direct results of an action, not preprogrammed based on a selected Alignment. It would be more like taking something someone just dropped in some other country instead of giving it back, negatively affecting your alignment, then the shopkeeper back home a month later treating you worse because your "alignment" is worse. The latter doesn't make sense. The former, your example, is practical and believable, based on player agency, action and reaction within the scope of the event, or at least explainable (such as how, reasonably, the shopkeeper back home found about your minor little thievery across the world and decided to treat you worse).

Both you, and thebruce have decided each on your own that my preference here is for the (lawful) paladin to only be presented with respectable options. Nevermind constant mentioning of Planescape's dynamic alignment system. I said I didn't mind static alignments, but I also said they were not my preference either.

Static or dynamic is irrelevant. Our point is the difference between direct consequences of actions, and consequence for actions that have never been taken. Why is something allowed/disallowed? Because of my perceived moral "Alignment"? Or because of something I did in the game?

In KotOR...

You repeatedly mention other games. Irrelevant. Sure, they could be good, great, or bad. But those are those games. You could cite many games with or without certain aspects of gameplay, but all that does is demonstrate what those developers produced. For my part, I don't care about other games - I could play them and enjoy them. I care, here, about BT4, and don't want Alignement defining my gameplay choices by label alone. If moral/ethical choices are included in the game, then I want to see outcomes of those choices directly. If alignment exists as a 'thing' in BT4, then it should be only a descriptor, not a mechanic.

The alignment stat (to use a bastardized term) is meta, it's not like a glowing plaque floating over their head that says "chaotic evil". As I've said before, it's best use is internal... like for deciding the severity of the dialog & choice options I mentioned before (above with those good & evil characters baby-stepping their way to a personality shift).

Again, that's more script-focused gameplay than BT. I don't have a problem with that in a different type of game. Though I still generally prefer the logical progression of action and reaction, not action and pre-emptive action. Dialogue options highlighted is using 'alignment' as a descriptor - or at least indicating what options may affect your alignment in the future. Fine. But that's not BT. If the choices themselves indicated which skill would be used to produce the best outcome, and the result was directly related to the choice you make, that's fine! If the choice doesn't affect some completely unrelated choice in the future, that's great! We don't want choices ambiguously defining some character mechanic that affects possible future choices which are not directly related to the action we just took. That's what the alignment mechanic does.

If Gollum is being played by a Player, then he can react however the player wants.

This is why we can't have nice things. That's not their personalities; that's playing them wrong; that's poor roleplaying at it's most egregious.

Again, you're coming from the standpoint of a scripted character, not a player-created character who hasn't yet defined moral/ethical alignment in the world - that is, by direct actions and consequences.
Also, all that woolfe said, again.

All this is to say: the complexities of these alignment systems better serves a single PC game. We have a party here and even moreso than Wasteland that party's consituents are not "permanent". We have dungeon delvers out to loot a monster's den. You can perhaps have class or race based restrictions, but these are absolute and aren't affected by choices beyond character creation.

These aren't even rangers so there's no "group memory" for townsfolk to attach to a badge or star. If somehow the story in the game does label the party as some sort of known band of "heroes", then maybe interactions can be based on party actions.

There is this wonderful scene in one of the the Zatoichi films, where Ichi and another man are trying to communicate, but one speaks Japanese and the other Chinese, and they have common words between them with entirely different meanings to each. ("There are no eggs in this!" )

Dialogue options highlighted is using 'alignment' as a descriptor - or at least indicating what options may affect your alignment in the future. Fine.

Fallout offered color coded responses if the PC had the Empathy perk; which was neat—and optional. Alignment color coding could be tedious and tricky; especially if it used different shades of grays.

If Gollum is being played by a Player, then he can react however the player wants.

This is why we can't have nice things. That's not their personalities; that's playing them wrong; that's poor roleplaying at its most egregious.

Again, you're coming from the standpoint of a scripted character, not a player-created character who hasn't yet defined moral/ethical alignment in the world - that is, by direct actions and consequences.

What is your exact interpretation of 'scripted'? I ask because scripted it is the right word, but I was thinking of algorithmic scripting. Where the NPC's actions and response text itself can be shuffled and edited on the fly to suit emergent situations.

This is a limited view of it IMO. The NPC could have access to a set of flags that indicate public knowledge, private knowledge, and personal observations, with which to influence NPC actions.

See that bit I have underlined. First that is what I have been saying. The NPC would be reacting to knowledge that exists based on the ACTIONS of the player. Second if we continue with the assumption that the Character is new and therefore has not provided any actions to fill those "influences" then the initial contact would be "discovery" type.
Third. This is not an alignment.

No

Also no

And of course it's not an alignment

When a message is read with a preconception of what it's about, the message can seem very confusing indeed when it's not about what one assumes.

The NPC would have access to scuttlebutt and personal observations (if any). Decisions could then be weighted, based on—what might not even be true.
... And before you repeat it again...This has nothing to do with alignments; and positively everything (in every post) that came before—that was obviously not about alignments... was intentionally not about alignments, and it was obvious.

A PC's Alignment could influence collected events, or limit what events were possible. but it would be an inferior solution if the NPC logic simply checked the alignment to make decisions. The list of flags I mentioned, would be thing's like 'publicly known as a pickpocket'—for having been seen doing it in public. This single fact (among many bits of information) could add (positive or negative) weight to an NPC's reactions. Perhaps even raise their difficulty to successfully pickpocket them; because they are expecting it of the PC. Yes...this of itself has nothing to do with alignments; it has to do with an activity being seen and talked about... It doesn't have to be pickpocketing, it could be anything seen or gossip-worthy. It could be 'winning 500k at the craps table', and many NPCs would know the town scuttlebutt; some of them might (then) spontaneously decide to rob the PC and skip town with the money. Every NPC could be privy to common gossip; a few might be privy to what actually happened. Each might use the same information very differently. None would necessarily know the PC's alignment.

This could be setup as factions with faction knowledge. Every town resident would be in the town faction, and privy to town gossip. Drifters and other recent arrivals might not be. This means that they wouldn't immediately be aware that the PC is a known pickpocket—not until they find out about it; either from being added to some faction with the information, or they see it themselves. This has nothing to do with alignments.

This means that a guard who is secretly in the smuggler's guild (faction) could automatically allow the PC to pass on smuggler's business—because they know about it. This has nothing to do with alignments.
(The same behavior could happen if the guard was fooled (by skill, stats, NPC aid...) into believing that the PC was smuggling for the guild.)

Where alignments could actually come into play is in determining some of the actions available to the PC, and adjusting the weight (and possible XP values) of any recorded actions. To a good PC... doing good actions is expected. It is unexpected of evil PCs... (who probably have ulterior motives, and should not get the full XP amount for it; because it's out of character); think: Gunfighter tells the snitch he can start walkin' [letting him go; but intending to shoot him in the back]. By getting less XP for the ostensibly good act of letting him go, the player doesn't progress as fast doing good (and bas to build inertia), the good acts don't hurt their evil alignment score as fast as bad acts repair it. The PC probably makes up for the loss by shooting the snitch in the back. This is what the alignment inertia concept was describing—not a player skill vs. PC skill event. That was of course never about skill at all (that was from arm wrestling in Witcher 2). The example was about the incremental movement from one alignment to the next.

*No.
I am not advocating that a PC's appearance should change with their alignment. (But I might not be against it; if mild by comparison to KotOR or B&W.)

Again your example is pointless it has nothing to do with Alignment, and everything to do with the characters ACTIONS and the REACTIONS of the NPC's to them. Which is the point I have been making over and over and over.

But making this point is pointless, because you have decided that my suggestion is unsuitable—without ever (as yet) understanding my suggestion. Just interpret based on what's actually in my post, without preconceptions; and if it still seems BoguS to you, either re-read it, or ask questions. More than half of these posts have been rephrasing the one before it; and you pounced on them anew, with new takes on the wrong ideas, and why those new wrong ideas are wrong... I'm not an idiot Woolfe.

(I'm also not mad at anyone. I used to see all sorts of misunderstood posts by members on other forums, where people couldn't catch the author's meaning, or were incensed by unintended meanings they attributed to them.) Sometimes it's a language issue.

Last edited by Gizmo on February 2nd, 2018, 8:33 am, edited 4 times in total.

Dialogue options highlighted is using 'alignment' as a descriptor - or at least indicating what options may affect your alignment in the future. Fine.

Fallout offered color coded responses if the PC had the Empathy perk; which was neat—and optional. Alignment color coding could be tedious and tricky; especially if it used different shades of grays. :lol:

Ok. I'm not concerned about Fallout, or Witcher 2, or other games, they're irrelevant to me in this discussion. They may be great games themselves. I just know what I want (and don't want) to see in BT4.

This is why we can't have nice things. That's not their personalities; that's playing them wrong; that's poor roleplaying at it's most egregious.

Again, you're coming from the standpoint of a scripted character, not a player-created character who hasn't yet defined moral/ethical alignment in the world - that is, by direct actions and consequences.

What is your exact interpretation of 'scripted'? I ask because scripted is the right word, but I was thinking of algorithmic scripting. Where the NPC's actions and response text itself can be shuffled and edited on the fly to suit emergent situations.

Scripted as in dialogue between PC and NPC is chosen. As in dialogue is on the rails. As in the character was created by the devs to the point that they control actions and dialogue that's available and what shouldn't be available to the player. As in the role you are playing is more the devs' character than your own because they are telling a more heavily scripted, linear story. As in, that's not Bard's Tale.

The NPC would have access to scuttlebutt and personal observations (if any).

Why? Why must they? They will if devs decide they will. To me that makes sense if there is good reason for it. But then, once again, the resulting direct limitations are because of what the player has chosen to do, not because of an arbitrary, nebulous stat. We keep agreeing - if things change because of player agency, that is not the same thing as things changing merely because an Alignment stat says it should. There needs to be reason, and for that to happen in-game, it requires player agency, not pre-emptive player restriction.

... And before you repeat it again...This has nothing to do with alignments; and positively everything (in every post) that came before—that was obviously not about alignments... was intentionally not about alignments, and it was obvious.

Correct - it's about player agency. So maybe you agree, but you want alignment in that context. I don't know. We simply don't want the pre-emptive Alignment mechanic restricting things in Bard's Tale.

A PC's Alignment could influence collected events, or limit what events were possible. but it would be an inferior solution if the NPC logic simply checked the alignment to make decisions. The list of flags I mentioned, would be thing's like 'publicly known as a pickpocket'—for having been seen doing it in public. This single fact (among many bits of information) could add (positive or negative) weight to an NPC's reactions. Perhaps even raise their difficulty to successfully pickpocket them; because they are expecting it of the PC. Yes...this of itself has nothing to do with alignments; it has to do with an activity being seen and talked about... It doesn't have to be pickpocketing, it could be anything seen or gossip-worthy. It could be 'winning 500k at the craps table', and many NPCs would know the town scuttlebutt; some of them might (then) spontaneously decide to rob the PC and skip town with the money. Every NPC could be privy to common gossip; a few might be privy to what actually happened. Each might use the same information very differently. None would necessarily know the PC's alignment.

Bingo. We don't want alignment. We want cause and effect, to whatever degree the game creators decide to build. Alignment at most should be a descriptor, not a game-altering mechanic. Do you get how we're saying it yet? Or are you still disagreeing about...something?

This has nothing to do with alignments.

Then why are we talking about this? We don't want ALIGNMENT as a character statistic in BT4. Let's talk about that if you disagree.

Where alignments could actually come into play is in determining some of the actions available to the PC, and adjusting the weight (and possible XP values) of any recorded actions.

No, please.
Reactions can stack, but don't start making restrictions based on the descriptor alone.

This is what the alignment inertia concept was describing—not a player skill vs. PC skill event. That was of course never about skill at all (that was from arm wrestling in Witcher 2). The example was about the incremental movement from one alignment to the next.

Nope, still don't want it in BT. Reactions should be directly related to actions in the game, reasonably connected at most. Nothing should be responsive to what is supposed to be just a character descriptor if at all; no 'scale' of interpreted moral/ethical labels which affect game mechanics, no effects therein.

I am not advocating that a PC's appearance should change with their alignment. (But I might not be against it; if mild by comparison to KotOR or B&W.)

Good, it should be the other way around at best. PC's actions directly alter their appearance. Get a tattoo. Get scars. Buy dark/evil clothing to give the impression of being evil. My clothes, or especially my skin colour, shouldn't just change because the game thinks I'm 'evil'. I hate when games do that. At least without a reason I can accept - like the use of dark forces draining energy or life that physically alters your appearance. Sure. (but again that implies player agency) Just not random "Oh your alignment is evil, so you will look evil". That's an arbitrary descriptor having a game mechanical influence. Not in BT4 please.

(I'm also not mad at anyone. I used to see all sorts of misunderstood posts by members on other forums, where people couldn't catch the author's meaning, or were incensed by unintended meanings they attributed to them.) Sometimes it's a language issue.

It's easy to get frustrated. So props to everyone for not getting personal. At least not crossing the line to insult. Annoyance is one thing, but keeping it to the discussion and not the individual is proper and appreciated. All around.

All this is to say: the complexities of these alignment systems better serves a single PC game.

Much agreed. It's a different type of game. I mentioned earlier, does each character in the party have an alignment that themselves affects gameplay? Is the plot so scripted that each character will have different dialogue options based on their alignment? Or is there some amalgamated party-level alignment that does the job?
Ick.
No. If Alignment exists, it has a better place in a non-blobber RPG, most at place in a single PC RPG, especially with a deep story for the character. Not in BT4! :)

Ok. I'm not concerned about Fallout, or Witcher 2, or other games, they're irrelevant to me in this discussion. They may be great games themselves. I just know what I want (and don't want) to see in BT4.

That's nice.

... I'm not proposing they be used to inspire BT4.

Scripted as in dialogue between PC and NPC is chosen. As in dialogue is on the rails. As in the character was created by the devs to the point that they control actions and dialogue that's available and what shouldn't be available to the player. As in the role you are playing is more the devs' character than your own because they are telling a more heavily scripted, linear story. As in, that's not Bard's Tale.

Then yes, we are not talking about the same kind of scripted.

The NPC would have access to scuttlebutt and personal observations (if any).

Why? Why must they?

Because they would? Because they live in town? Because they observe?
(Do you prefer them to be just a UI store front in the RPGs you play? Do you understand that what you quoted is not asking for or suggesting this be done in BT4?)

Do you expect that in BT4? (Because I'd be shocked if it was; and I haven't proposed that it should be )

Bingo. We don't want alignment. We want cause and effect, to whatever degree the game creators decide to build. Alignment at most should be a descriptor, not a game-altering mechanic. Do you get how we're saying it yet? Or are you still disagreeing about...something?

Of course I get it; and I am not disagreeing, but I don't think that you understand what you are dismissing... and no, I do not mean, "but if you only knew, you'd see and agree ", I mean that I don't believe that you see it well enough to know if it contradicts what you want... but you sure think you do; Woolfe too. But both of you only decry the mention of it, instead of asking questions to clarify —or even to provide certain proof that that you don't like the idea.

This has nothing to do with alignments.

Then why are we talking about this?

Because Woolfe saw a paragraph or two (in every post) that wasn't about alignments, and assumed I was making a faulty point about alignments, and several times called it unrelated or meaningless. (It was a misunderstanding)

Where alignments could actually come into play is in determining some of the actions available to the PC, and adjusting the weight (and possible XP values) of any recorded actions.

No, please.
Reactions can stack, but don't start making restrictions based on the descriptor alone.

Can you explain how you think it would work? (Without stating instead that it wouldn't work, and that you wouldn't like it)
I'd like to know if you are dismissing on principle alone at this point, or if you really see the idea, and understand why it's not what you want.

This is what the alignment inertia concept was describing—not a player skill vs. PC skill event. That was of course never about skill at all (that was from arm wrestling in Witcher 2). The example was about the incremental movement from one alignment to the next.

Nope, still don't want it in BT.

Does it say anywhere in this thread that this would be great to put in BT4?

I am not advocating that a PC's appearance should change with their alignment. (But I might not be against it; if mild by comparison to KotOR or B&W.)

Good...

?

That doesn't deserve a quoted response... It was a preemptive disclaimer, because if it wasn't there, we'd have had additional posts about the animated gif changing its appearance with alignment, and how that would be bad, and be something else not at all not wanted. You've invented contention that we don't have.

It's easy to get frustrated. So props to everyone for not getting personal. At least not crossing the line to insult. Annoyance is one thing, but keeping it to the discussion and not the individual is proper and appreciated. All around.

Again your example is pointless it has nothing to do with Alignment, and everything to do with the characters ACTIONS and the REACTIONS of the NPC's to them. Which is the point I have been making over and over and over.

But making this point is pointless, because you have decided that my suggestion is unsuitable—without ever (as yet) understanding my suggestion. Just interpret based on what's actually in my post, without preconceptions; and if it still seems BoguS to you, either re-read it, or ask questions. More than half of these posts have been rephrasing the one before it; and you pounced on them anew, with new takes on the wrong ideas, and why those new wrong ideas are wrong... I'm not an idiot Woolfe.

(I'm also not mad at anyone. I used to see all sorts of misunderstood posts by members on other forums, where people couldn't catch the author's meaning, or were incensed by unintended meanings they attributed to them.) Sometimes it's a language issue.

I am over this whole conversation.

I came into this SPECIFICALLY because you were shouting "Alignment, Alignment, Alignment". Worse you were calling for the amorphous alignment stat to directly affect player choice, by removing or adding "alignment" specific choices.
Everything I have talked about has been from the point of view of NOT HAVING an alignment attribute, and instead using actions and reactions to define what is and isn't seen by the character.

If that is not what you believe you are arguing. Then I'm sorry, but that is what I am seeing, and communication 101, if someone doesn't understand you, then you haven't explained it properly.
And no I am not going to go back and re-read pages of anecdotes and examples from other games, for the gems of wisdom apparently buried deep in the paragraphs.
If it's a different argument then make it clear, because my impression is that all that shit was in some way related to your stance on alignment.

Last chance I guess. Make it as simple and as short as possible, and don't use an example of another game or a fucking pointless anecdote that just causes confusion.

This is not always the case. It can happen that intelligent people listen to an explanation without understanding it, and it not be the fault of the speaker. But when that happens they usually ask questions about what they are not understanding.

Seeing as we all seem to agree about alignments in BT4, I don't see the point further explanations; but I will endeavor it if you want.
__

I think it's a hot-button subject—at least for the time being. We have plenty of time to revisit it some other month.

Lets let it fade for a while, and stay on friendly terms for the other topics.

It's a little hard to make suggestions without a good understanding of how the combat system works, which I do not have, so this is going to be a little vague and generic.

(1) I've always been fond of clever or interesting crowd control spells. Imagine something like a powerful CC spell, but in exchange for its strength of effect (perhaps it has a higher than normal chance of landing, or effects more enemies at once) it has some counterbalancing detrimental effect on your own party. Perhaps it also takes one of your own party members out of the fight for its duration, or perhaps it directly damages your own party for each round it lasts. The idea is that you can use a "normal" spell most of the time, but sometimes things are dire and you might be willing to accept a significant harm to your party in exchange for better odds of getting out of whatever bad situation you just got yourself into.

(2) I've also always been fond of utility spells, things you cast and use primarily outside combat. There were a number of those in BT1, and I hope more appear in BT4. IMHO they make the world feel more organic, and less like a "series of combats". Levitations. Detecting invisible things. Reading unknown runes. Light spells that can provide superior light to torches in dark places. Maybe at high levels, weather altering spells (assuming there's such a thing as weather) which can provide some slight debuff, e.g, to monsters that prefer to fight in dreadful weather, if you encounter them while the spell is going. "Luck" spells that do something slightly mysterious and random, but good, such as giving you a bit better chance of finding good treasure one time, or better odds of evading attacks the next, or decreasing the SP cost of the next few spells the time after.